4 ms·

In order for property taxes to be moral we have to ask what land is and what land does. Land is an economic good that is unlike any other. It captures the value

by TimPC 4y ago

In order for property taxes to be moral we have to ask what land is and what land does. Land is an economic good that is unlike any other. It captures the value of other people’s work just by existing. As the amount of income in a neighborhood goes up the land value goes up even if no one improves everything. So there are substantial questions on why you are entitled to 100% of these gains you didn’t create. Short of libertarianism you’re not going to have a moral basis for a property right strong enough to justify it. And libertarianism is a terrible morass of bad philosophical ideas that don’t work.

teakettle42 4y ago
> It captures the value of other people’s work just by existing That’s an invention to justify your desire to force people out of their homes to make way for your preferred use of their land. You don’t want to only tax the profits when they actually do eventually sell; you want to tax unrealized “value” that they derive no benefit from and will never see if they remain in their homes and as part of their community.
- TimPC 4y ago
  No, it's a valid economic model that has been consistently explained through economic theory. You are entitled to you're own opinion but not your own facts and you're literally calling substantial pieces of modern economics "an invention" in the sense of fiction. I want to tax the economic rent of land. Your land being worth more has benefits to you even if you haven't yet cashed them in. The market taxes on your property going up functions similarly to rents going up from land increases and is just as justified. You treat it as a strange mystic unnatural phenomenon unlike anything that has ever existed. It's pretty bog standard. If there is a moral basis for rent increases in response to land value increases there is a moral basis for increasing the amount of tax charged for land value increases. In both cases, the expense comes from unrealized value of land, the landlord doesn't have to sell in order to raise a rent. Property rights aren't magic that tears down the very fabric of reality.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > You treat it as a strange mystic unnatural phenomenon unlike anything that has ever existed. No, I’m treating a taxation scheme as an arbitrary invention because that’s what it it is. Nothing mystical or unnatural about it. Just, in this case, grossly immoral. > If there is a moral basis for rent increases in response to land value increases there is a moral basis for increasing the amount of tax charged for land value increases. You’re rather breezily glossing over the fundamental difference — property rights. I get that you dislike property rights and want to steal them from people living contrary to how you believe they should, but your wanting to steal what other people have isn’t a position I’m going to agree with. > Property rights aren't magic that tears down the very fabric of reality. Your invented scheme to force people out of their homes so you can redevelop their land isn’t “the fabric of reality”.
    - TimPC 4y ago
      I see. So you’re just one of these fringe libertarians who thinks property rights are so strong they admit no basis for taxation and you want to call all taxation to be both arbitrary and theft. I consider it a privilege for my thoughts to be immoral according to your warped and twisted worldview. People arguing for higher taxes on property are arguing an admissible public policy. The right to private property in land is contingent on taxation and there is a long-established moral basis for either property tax or land tax. I’m very curious for you to provide a definition of property rights that is more concrete than whatever you want them to be.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        No, I just think the current model of property taxation is immoral; the government shouldn’t be inducing gentrification and the destruction of communities. The model you’re proposing (LVT) is more sinister, in that the taxation rates would be set with the intention of directly coercing behavior and socially engineering other people’s lives according to your preferences. Of course, I think you’d very quickly find that, thanks to corruption and regulatory capture, it would not be your preferences being prioritized, and you’d have simply handed a huge hammer to exploitative developers.

by TimPC 4y ago

teakettle42 4y ago

> It captures the value of other people’s work just by existing That’s an invention to justify your desire to force people out of their homes to make way for your preferred use of their land. You don’t want to only tax the profits when they actually do eventually sell; you want to tax unrealized “value” that they derive no benefit from and will never see if they remain in their homes and as part of their community.

TimPC 4y ago
No, it's a valid economic model that has been consistently explained through economic theory. You are entitled to you're own opinion but not your own facts and you're literally calling substantial pieces of modern economics "an invention" in the sense of fiction. I want to tax the economic rent of land. Your land being worth more has benefits to you even if you haven't yet cashed them in. The market taxes on your property going up functions similarly to rents going up from land increases and is just as justified. You treat it as a strange mystic unnatural phenomenon unlike anything that has ever existed. It's pretty bog standard. If there is a moral basis for rent increases in response to land value increases there is a moral basis for increasing the amount of tax charged for land value increases. In both cases, the expense comes from unrealized value of land, the landlord doesn't have to sell in order to raise a rent. Property rights aren't magic that tears down the very fabric of reality.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > You treat it as a strange mystic unnatural phenomenon unlike anything that has ever existed. No, I’m treating a taxation scheme as an arbitrary invention because that’s what it it is. Nothing mystical or unnatural about it. Just, in this case, grossly immoral. > If there is a moral basis for rent increases in response to land value increases there is a moral basis for increasing the amount of tax charged for land value increases. You’re rather breezily glossing over the fundamental difference — property rights. I get that you dislike property rights and want to steal them from people living contrary to how you believe they should, but your wanting to steal what other people have isn’t a position I’m going to agree with. > Property rights aren't magic that tears down the very fabric of reality. Your invented scheme to force people out of their homes so you can redevelop their land isn’t “the fabric of reality”.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    I see. So you’re just one of these fringe libertarians who thinks property rights are so strong they admit no basis for taxation and you want to call all taxation to be both arbitrary and theft. I consider it a privilege for my thoughts to be immoral according to your warped and twisted worldview. People arguing for higher taxes on property are arguing an admissible public policy. The right to private property in land is contingent on taxation and there is a long-established moral basis for either property tax or land tax. I’m very curious for you to provide a definition of property rights that is more concrete than whatever you want them to be.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      No, I just think the current model of property taxation is immoral; the government shouldn’t be inducing gentrification and the destruction of communities. The model you’re proposing (LVT) is more sinister, in that the taxation rates would be set with the intention of directly coercing behavior and socially engineering other people’s lives according to your preferences. Of course, I think you’d very quickly find that, thanks to corruption and regulatory capture, it would not be your preferences being prioritized, and you’d have simply handed a huge hammer to exploitative developers.